Answer:
1. 2) Fishermen report low catch of species for eating.
Fishermen will first report that they were unable to catch much fish.
2. 3) Public hearings are held to determine all the possible solutions.
There will then be a public hearing where the possible reasons and solutions to the fish problem are discussed.
3. 4)Marine scientists count fish population.
As part of the solution, marine scientists will count the populations of fish in the water.
4. 5)The Department of Fish and Game evaluates the repopulation of fisheries.
Based on this count, the Department of Fish and Game will research to find out how they can repopulate the water bodies.
5. Department of Fish and Game sets limits for fishermen.
As a result of this research, the Department will come up with a limit on the amount of fish that can be caught in a particular period to enable to fish population to rise to a certain level again.
Explanation:
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Answer:
Mira la respuesta a continuación
Explanation:
En una democracia, cada individuo tiene derechos a la libertad que van desde el habla, el movimiento, la asociación, la vida, etc. Sin embargo, las leyes hechas por las autoridades de un estado son vinculantes para todos los ciudadanos de ese estado. La autonomía no debe confundirse con rebelión e insubordinación. Ningún individuo está por encima de la ley y no hay libertad para la desobediencia de las leyes hechas por la autoridad de un estado.
Además, no hay licencia para que la autoridad infrinja los derechos de las personas. Es por eso que existe el derecho a la libertad de audiencia imparcial. Los ciudadanos pueden demandar a la autoridad si presentan leyes que están en contra de las personas. Las personas, en este caso, pueden ejercer sus derechos.
Por lo tanto, es cierto que en una sociedad que funciona democráticamente, cualquier oposición planteada por el autor puede ser superada porque tanto el individuo como la autoridad tienen derecho a una audiencia imparcial en el tribunal de justicia.
Answer:
Yes
Explanation:
What the officers did was unconstitutional and violated the 4th amendment. Weeks v. United States established the Exclusionary Rule in 1914. At the time the exclusionary rule was only applied for federal courts instead of all courts. In 1949, Wolf v. Colorado, the High Court ruled that the Exclusionary Rule did not apply to the State but the Fourth Amendment did. In 1961, Mapp v. Ohio, the High Court ruled that the exclusionary rule applies to the state level as well as the federal. Justice Clark said this perfectly, "Thus the State, by admitting evidence unlawfully seized, serves to encourage disobedience to the Federal Constitution which it is bound to uphold....... Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence."
Answer:
so people can not get hurt
